Iron and Chipbreaker upgrade.

[Michail Kyriazanos]

Hello everyone and happy new Year.

I missed a really good deal a couple of months back for a LN bronze no.4 for 160usd which would be my first really hi end plane. Since then Ive been thinking upgrading me Stanley no.4 Smoother with an aftermarket iron and cap and wait for the right moment to grab an LN.

I can find in many shops in Europe combos by Ron Hock and Veritas and also blades from Japanese steel, Kunz HSS and laminated Chinese HSS.


Would you recommend something that you have seen working and be happy with?

[Frederick Skelly]

Three years ago, I upgraded my #4 with a Veritas iron and chipbreaker and I have been very happy with it. In fact, I've been so happy with the tool that I never bought the LN #4 that I originally wanted.

Here is a LINK (https://www.leevalley.com/en-us/shop/tools/hand-tools/planes/blades/100620-stanley-record-cap-irons-with-veritas-bench-plane-blade) to what I bought. I chose A2 steel but other steels are available.

[Nathan Johnson]

I have a Stanley 5 with an iron that had a significant hump along the back. I put a Hock O1 iron in and retained the original Stanley chipbreaker and it works just fine.

The Veritas irons are also excellent, but I believe they are thicker than the Hock irons. So my #5 required no frog adjustment or mouth filing by just replacing the iron with a Hock.

It may be that you just need the iron, and not the chipbreaker.

Also, I got a bronze #3 from Lie Nielsen earlier this year and I absolutely adore it. It is such a pleasure to use and look at. You definitely need that #4 eventually. :)

[Jim Koepke]

Hi Michail,

My experience is limited to a handful of Hock blades and one PM v-11 from Veritas. The Hock O1 blades are excellent. The PM x-11 just keeps on going. After its first honing it has been used a lot without signs of dulling. It is an amazing material.

My main observation with the Hock blades is they wear better than the original Stanley blades. If the user doesn't pay attention they will tend to be used longer than other blades which results in more honing needed to get past the wear on the edge.

Most of my planes still have Stanley irons. They work fine for me.

The Hock blades work fine with a good Stanley chip breaker.

Nathan expresses a good point:


Also, I got a bronze #3 from Lie Nielsen earlier this year and I absolutely adore it. It is such a pleasure to use and look at. You definitely need that #4 eventually. :)

How a person feels about the tools in their hand as they are used can have an influence on how we relate to our work. For me a tool that has been through the turning of two centuries has as much, if not more, appeal as one made to the highest engineering standards just last week.

One's pride can glow from holding a fine piece of modern craftsmanship while producing their own fine work.

My warm fuzzies often come from holding a tool that was brought back from a slow rusting end to a piece having risen phoenix like to work again.

jtk

[John C Cox]

I've actually gotten the best bang for the buck replacing the chipbreakers with Hock units. It made a GIANT improvement getting rid of chatter and making everything work better.

I've tried a bunch of things and almost completely went back to Stanley irons. They're just so easy to sharpen.

[Michail Kyriazanos]

Thanks to everyone for the responses. I will stick to either Hock or Veritas combo, depending on availability in European shops.

I dont have anything against the Stanley stock iron, the surface left by my smoother only gets burnished by the shavings before applying finish, but to keep it that way I have to sharpen a lot for anything a bit larger than a keepsake box.

I noticed that the veritas combo is a lot cheaper in US(around 35euros less, thats what the vintage Stanley costed me initially, haha).

[Brad Roof]

I upgraded a 4.5 with the veritas pmv11 and chip breaker and have been very happy with it. The edge retention is very impressive and I am able to hone it with oil stones and charged strop. In my experience you don't really feel a wire edge with it like the traditional irons...it is more like a rolled edge...that investment was 75.00 I believe and the plane performs great now...

[Jim Matthews]

I can find in many shops in Europe combos by Ron Hock and Veritas and also blades from Japanese steel, Kunz HSS and laminated Chinese HSS.


Would you recommend something that you have seen working and be happy with?

The Hock blades in O1 are excellent, and value priced.
I believe they're sourced in France. If you sharpen by hand, they're tolerant of most any approach.

The Veritas PM V-11 is amazing stuff. As mentioned above, the most difficult step is removing the wire edge formed while honing.

I use a powered cotton buffing wheel to strop similar blades with mixed success (I have more familiarity with O1 steel). The very best finish I have ever achieved directly off a plane was with a similar blade made for me by David Weaver.

Please check your private message folder.

[David Bassett]

Hello everyone and happy new Year....

Happy New Year!


... I can find in many shops in Europe combos by Ron Hock and Veritas and also blades from Japanese steel, Kunz HSS and laminated Chinese HSS....

Of those I'd choose the Hock O1 or the Veritas PMV-11, but honestly (most of) this advice has all been North America specific.

I'm sure there are forges in the EU capable of making good irons, I just haven't heard of them. (E.g. Auriou & Liogier certainly could make them, but I have no evidence they do. Narex is competent, if not exactly high end, and could make an iron.) Good luck.

A lot of Hock's production is done by a family forge in France, so hopefully a Hock iron will be distributed directly in the EU and won't have to cross the Atlantic twice.

Another European made iron, though not out of the EU, would be the Ray Ilses irons. They are made in England for TFWW in the US. I don't know if they are special or carried by other vendors closer to you. (Nor do I recall ever seeing a review, other than Joel's on the TFWW site.)

[Winston Chang]

My experience with PM-V11 is different from many others here. I had a PM-V11 blade in a smoothing plane, and it tended to chip so I sent it back. Lee Valley sent me a replacement, and this one seems good, but not drastically superior to other blades that I have.

[David Dalzell]

I have an old Stanley #4. I bought a Hock iron, but kept the original chipbreaker. It has turned out to be a great smoother. I use this and the Veritas bevel up smoother. Veritas for difficult wood, Stanley #4 for everything else. Both work great.

[ken hatch]

Hello everyone and happy new Year.

I missed a really good deal a couple of months back for a LN bronze no.4 for 160usd which would be my first really hi end plane. Since then Ive been thinking upgrading me Stanley no.4 Smoother with an aftermarket iron and cap and wait for the right moment to grab an LN.

I can find in many shops in Europe combos by Ron Hock and Veritas and also blades from Japanese steel, Kunz HSS and laminated Chinese HSS.


Would you recommend something that you have seen working and be happy with?

Michall,

I have not tried Kunz or Chinese HSS but I have used Hock, Veritas and Japanese bi-metal cutters. The Japanese irons work much better in a Stanley plane than the others simply because it is thin like the OEM cutter and takes a durable sharp edge. Most of my planes have Japanese iron if one is made for that plane and the Hock and Veritas set on the shelf.

ken

[Michail Kyriazanos]

Thanks everyone for the new inputs


UK seems to produce plane irons, no other European forge unfortunatelly. There are only rumors that Narex is going to start producing and sale, but nothing yet.


Ken what japanese blade are you working with? do you have a link maybe? there are seem to be a few sellers in UK and EU but I dont know if they have the same source. Also do you use the Stanley chipbreaker with your iron or an upgrade?

WorkshopHeaven sells Tsunesaburo Aogami irons 2.3mm thick, my no4 has 2mm iron

[Rob Luter]

Another vote for Hock. I invested in replacement iron for my Stanley #3 and an iron/chip breaker combination for my #7. I went with the O1 versions and have been very pleased. Note that these are quite a bit thicker than a standard Stanley iron. Your cap iron screw may not be long enough (my #3 barely fit) and the combined thickness of iron and chipbreaker may require a frog or mouth adjustment as was the case with my #7. These are simple adjustments but may require some precision filing of the mouth.

This video (at 1:55) shows this process


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcuLwishP_U

[Robert Engel]

I've used the Veritas irons.

Bear in mind you may have to file the throat a little to accomodate the thicker iron.

[Laurent Marshall]

My experience is limited to a handful of Hock blades and one PM v-11 from Veritas. The Hock O1 blades are excellent. The PM x-11 just keeps on going. After its first honing it has been used a lot without signs of dulling. It is an amazing material.

My experience is similar. I've purchased a few Hock O1 blades and chip breakers, and used one PMV11 blade from Veritas in my jointer plane. The Hock blades are a big step up from the from the original blades. The Veritas PMV11 blades are even better for edge retention and require less prep to be ready to use - you will need to polish the back of the Hock blades, it's nothing crazy like with some of the original factory blades, but it's a step you'll want to perform.

Both Veritas and Hock chip breakers are also way better than the the original ones, and only require minimal tuning (I like to sharpen the front edge of my chip breakers - they aren't always as acute as I'd like out of the box). I don't think you'll notice any difference in performance between either the Veritas or Hock chip breakers. I have not yet run into a plane where I actually had to to open the mouth with a file to accept the thicker Hock or Veritas blades.

A word on sharpening - PMV11 is tough to sharpen, and since I do all my sharpening by hand, I really try hard not to let it get very dull. Any of the higher quality replacement blades (Veritas, Hock, LN, Woodriver etc.) will be more work to sharpen by hand than the original blades, so keep that in mind.

[Warren Mickley]

The Hock and Veritas cap irons have too shallow an angle to be really effective for tearout. I talked to Ron Hock about this some years ago and he said you could bend the Hock cap iron in a vise to get a steeper angle. The suggestion that Bailey design cap irons are ineffective is preposterous.

[fritz eng]

More than happy with IBC/Pinnacle blades from Canada in addition to Hock and Veritas.

[Laurent Marshall]

The Hock and Veritas cap irons have too shallow an angle to be really effective for tearout. I talked to Ron Hock about this some years ago and he said you could bend the Hock cap iron in a vise to get a steeper angle. The suggestion that Bailey design cap irons are ineffective is preposterous.


I don't think Bailey style cap irons are ineffective, I just find them to be more work to tune up. The shallow angle on Hock or Veritas cap irons is typical of older non-Bailey planes - you'll see a very similar bevel angle on cap irons in woodies and infill planes, and a few outliers like Ohio Tool's Bailey-style planes. To make them work, rather than bending them, you sharpen a very small micro-bevel at a slightly steeper angle to the leading edge of the chip breaker. Then you set it up so that it's as close as possible to the cutting edge of the iron. Setting up one of these cap irons this way is quick and easy, and works great with no need to bend anything, and it's easily reversible if you over do it.

Some stock bailey chip breakers work great with no work, others really don't, they're not really all that consistent - unlike a Hock or Veritas chip breaker.

[Jim Koepke]

Some stock bailey chip breakers work great with no work, others really don't, they're not really all that consistent

Many of them have been used and/or abused for more than a century. They likely are not like they were when new.

jtk

[Laurent Marshall]

Many of them have been used and/or abused for more than a century. They likely are not like they were when new.

jtk

Oh for sure! I had a chance to look at an older Stanley #6 (pre-WWI) that had some pretty amazing wear on the blade and chip breaker. The iron had been sharpened down to about a 1/4" of the slot slot for the cap iron screw, and the leading edge and face of the cap iron was visibly worn back into a bit of concave shape from all the shavings going by. The plane also had a previous owner's initials marked on the sides, so my assumption is that it was used by a professional tradesman. Other than the wear on the iron and chip breaker, the rest of the plane was in good shape, and had that look tools get after being used hard for a long time, but also well looked after.

A much more common problem is to see stock cap irons bent by excessive pressure from the lever cap, which can cause the chip breaker to not have good contact with the back of the iron.

[jesse ross]

What are your go-to files to widen holes in cap irons when necessary? I’m trying to replace the stock a2 iron in a LN#4 with a hock blade. The thinner hock blade + LN chip breaker rock a little on the blade adjustment button due to the button’s pyramid shape. If I could file the hole on the chip breaker a bit I think the blade would bed nicely but my Nicholson files won’t make a dent in the chip breaker.

[Laurent Marshall]

What are your go-to files to widen holes in cap irons when necessary? I’m trying to replace the stock a2 iron in a LN#4 with a hock blade. The thinner hock blade + LN chip breaker rock a little on the blade adjustment button due to the button’s pyramid shape. If I could file the hole on the chip breaker a bit I think the blade would bed nicely but my Nicholson files won’t make a dent in the chip breaker.

I'm pretty sure the LN chip breakers are hardened steel, probably something not unlike the blade itself. You'll likely have a hard time filing it with anything, you might have better luck with the right Dremel attachment.

What's your rational to put a Hock blade in an LN plane? My expectation would be that the LN blade is just as good as Hock, certainly not any worse. They're both excellent quality steel.

[Warren Mickley]

I would call the Lie Nielsen irons substandard. I have been to many Lie Nielsen events over the last dozen years; their irons leave a surface that is not as clean as what I get with original Bailey irons. I have watched LN representatives sharpen irons and put them fresh in the plane and seen the result.

Ron Hock says his O1 irons yield a better edge than A2. I can't see why he would be confused.

[Laurent Marshall]

I would call the Lie Nielsen irons substandard. I have been to many Lie Nielsen events over the last dozen years; their irons leave a surface that is not as clean as what I get with original Bailey irons. I have watched LN representatives sharpen irons and put them fresh in the plane and seen the result.

Ron Hock says his O1 irons yield a better edge than A2. I can't see why he would be confused.

I've had a chance to try out LN planes at their factory store, the irons certainly passed muster as far as I was concerned at first brush. There's a big debate out there about the merits of A2 steel, some people love it, others don't. That said, LN and a couple other manufacturers seem to be really committed to A2 steel, although I don't really understand the rationale.

I really like Hock's O1 steel and Veritas' PMV11 - I've got the most experience with those and they work for me. The original Bailey irons are ok, they dull more quickly, but they have the merit of being very easy to sharpen to a keen edge. I would give A2 a chance if I had a reason to buy a new plane, but I don't.

[Scott Winners]

A bit late to the party, but I can add for future search button users:

Local to me vintage Bailey irons tend to be badly pitted when found in antique shops. I like the factory irons just fine when I can rehab them. I work both hard and soft wood, I like A2 pretty well when honed to 30-35 degrees, I have chipping issues with A2 when honed to 25 degrees.

I did replace the iron in my #4 Bailey with Veritas O1, managed to keep the factory chip breaker. I am ecstatic with it. I did have to open the mouth of the plane body a tiny little bit, could only fit a four inch file in there and hand to spend some time on it, but it is done now.

I do not yet own any PMV-11 but the folks that have it like it.

[Charles Guest]

I would call the Lie Nielsen irons substandard. I have been to many Lie Nielsen events over the last dozen years; their irons leave a surface that is not as clean as what I get with original Bailey irons. I have watched LN representatives sharpen irons and put them fresh in the plane and seen the result.

Ron Hock says his O1 irons yield a better edge than A2. I can't see why he would be confused.

Yeah, boy. Those Lie-Nielsen planes are real garbage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIRTAPxGoRY

[Rafael Herrera]

Yeah, boy. Those Lie-Nielsen planes are real garbage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIRTAPxGoRY

You can't tell the finish out of those irons from a video. The complaint I've seen posted here and other forums is that those A2 irons chip, leaving a surface that needs to be sanded or scraped. My one and only A2 iron is on a new Stanley 9 1/2 block plane I use for endgrain, when it chips it leaves a line on the surface.

[michael langman]

I've had a chance to try out LN planes at their factory store, the irons certainly passed muster as far as I was concerned at first brush. There's a big debate out there about the merits of A2 steel, some people love it, others don't. That said, LN and a couple other manufacturers seem to be really committed to A2 steel, although I don't really understand the rationale.

I really like Hock's O1 steel and Veritas' PMV11 - I've got the most experience with those and they work for me. The original Bailey irons are ok, they dull more quickly, but they have the merit of being very easy to sharpen to a keen edge. I would give A2 a chance if I had a reason to buy a new plane, but I don't.


A2 does not warp in heat treat like O1. Their commitment to A2 is for less labor costs.

[Curt Putnam]

Yeah, boy. Those Lie-Nielsen planes are real garbage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIRTAPxGoRY

Wow! That was a mesmerizing video. Thank you for the link.

[Derek Cohen]

You can't tell the finish out of those irons from a video. The complaint I've seen posted here and other forums is that those A2 irons chip, leaving a surface that needs to be sanded or scraped. My one and only A2 iron is on a new Stanley 9 1/2 block plane I use for endgrain, when it chips it leaves a line on the surface.

It's a bit risky to generalise from one blade, Rafael. I have been using A2 steel for at least 20 years, and must have had dozens in this time, from both Veritas and LN. It's decent steel and produces decent results. There are nicer steels to sharpen, but it is not a limiting factor. I do not automatically find chips in the wake of these blades.

https://i.postimg.cc/qRPPq9sk/1.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Charles Guest]

You can't tell the finish out of those irons from a video. The complaint I've seen posted here and other forums is that those A2 irons chip, leaving a surface that needs to be sanded or scraped. My one and only A2 iron is on a new Stanley 9 1/2 block plane I use for endgrain, when it chips it leaves a line on the surface.

Does the craftsman in the video appear to you to be somebody who would chuck it all at the very end to get lousy results from his hand planes? Not only is the work itself stunning, but the investment in other equipment besides his hand tools quite significant.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjatELwdjLj3_03Q80iTc_g

[Rafael Herrera]

It's a bit risky to generalise from one blade, Rafael. I have been using A2 steel for at least 20 years, and must have had dozens in this time, from both Veritas and LN. It's decent steel and produces decent results. There are nicer steels to sharpen, but it is not a limiting factor. I do not automatically find chips in the wake of these blades.


I'm not generalizing, I said I only have one and when it chipped it left tracks on the work. It's been mentioned before that this steel has a tendency to chip if not properly sharpened.

I used my A2 block plane last night on endgrain Bubinga. It did an excellent job, the iron is not chipped and the surface was smooth. I still prefer my OEM irons, though.

Cheers,
Rafael

[Warren Mickley]

You can't tell the finish out of those irons from a video. The complaint I've seen posted here and other forums is that those A2 irons chip, leaving a surface that needs to be sanded or scraped. My one and only A2 iron is on a new Stanley 9 1/2 block plane I use for endgrain, when it chips it leaves a line on the surface.

I watched the video also. There is nothing to suggest a high proficiency with planes. I don't see that they know how to usea trying plane or a smoothing plane.

[Laurent Marshall]

A2 does not warp in heat treat like O1. Their commitment to A2 is for less labor costs.

I wasn't aware of that, but it certainly makes sense.

[Clifford McGuire]

I watched the video also. There is nothing to suggest a high proficiency with planes. I don't see that they know how to usea trying plane or a smoothing plane.

Just watched a couple of their videos. Gosh, they turn out some beautiful work.

What were they doing wrong?

[Charles Guest]

I watched the video also. There is nothing to suggest a high proficiency with planes. I don't see that they know how to usea trying plane or a smoothing plane.

Thanks for the laugh.

[Warren Mickley]

Yes, Clifford, I suspect that all they were doing with the planes was skimming off a little wood between machine work and sanding. In other words they were just covering up their methods.

When we use a trying plane to make a nice flat surface we use winding sticks and straightedge to test the work. This yields very precise results.

When they planed they used sloppy strokes, kind of in an arc, and also a lot of partial strokes. This kind of stuff will show up in the work unless you sand it to get rid of all the evidence.

For a fine planed surface, you want all full length straight passes.

[Charles Guest]

Yes, Clifford, I suspect that all they were doing with the planes was skimming off a little wood between machine work and sanding. In other words they were just covering up their methods.

When we use a trying plane to make a nice flat surface we use winding sticks and straightedge to test the work. This yields very precise results.

When they planed they used sloppy strokes, kind of in an arc, and also a lot of partial strokes. This kind of stuff will show up in the work unless you sand it to get rid of all the evidence.

For a fine planed surface, you want all full length straight passes.

Here's more crappy work by the same guy (may need to rewind the video to 0):

Block Front Chest Building Process by Doucette and Wolfe Furniture Makers - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRbIq-kxIgQ&t=235s)

Clearly has no idea how to wield a plane or other hand tools. ;)

[Charles Guest]

Yes, Clifford, I suspect that all they were doing with the planes was skimming off a little wood between machine work and sanding. In other words they were just covering up their methods.

When we use a trying plane to make a nice flat surface we use winding sticks and straightedge to test the work. This yields very precise results.

When they planed they used sloppy strokes, kind of in an arc, and also a lot of partial strokes. This kind of stuff will show up in the work unless you sand it to get rid of all the evidence.

For a fine planed surface, you want all full length straight passes.

And here's the poor, hapless, clueless hack stumbling, staggering, and bludgeoning his way to a set of eight Chippendale chairs :rolleyes: :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0suZRvmmIq8

This is Part 1. I think Part 2 will play automatically but not sure.

[Charles Guest]

Yes, Clifford, I suspect that all they were doing with the planes was skimming off a little wood between machine work and sanding. In other words they were just covering up their methods.

When we use a trying plane to make a nice flat surface we use winding sticks and straightedge to test the work. This yields very precise results.

When they planed they used sloppy strokes, kind of in an arc, and also a lot of partial strokes. This kind of stuff will show up in the work unless you sand it to get rid of all the evidence.

For a fine planed surface, you want all full length straight passes.


I can't say for sure what his complete routine for surfaces is, but I'm not seeing any problems with the figured mahogany here though granted it's a video. Anybody have quibbles with how these turned out? Watch the whole thing!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TNtaamaaf8&list=PLnaa821w2diJNNil9sLfd9r1R1kkAmrqq

[Charles Guest]

Yes, Clifford, I suspect that all they were doing with the planes was skimming off a little wood between machine work and sanding. In other words they were just covering up their methods.

When we use a trying plane to make a nice flat surface we use winding sticks and straightedge to test the work. This yields very precise results.

When they planed they used sloppy strokes, kind of in an arc, and also a lot of partial strokes. This kind of stuff will show up in the work unless you sand it to get rid of all the evidence.

For a fine planed surface, you want all full length straight passes.


They seemed to have dealt reasonably well with the Claro Walnut used in this project:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv6A05yKgiQ